DSLRUsers.com

by **Mal** on Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:45 pm

Oh how bad is the lens lust.......
Today the ABC photographer was out with us getting publicity shots. Louie is such a nice guy (aren't all photographers :lol:

) Anyhow he let me place some very nice glass on my D70 (yep I still have mine)
The nicest was the 70-200VR oh how sweet it is.... so now again the lusting has begun at the worst time of the year.
I know that some have the Sigma alternative, and I will have to do a search to look back at some of the comparisons, but should I save for the Nikon or go for the Sigma?

by **Alpha_7** on Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:52 pm

I know the feeling I spent the weekend using Paul's kit (he kindly loaned me). 70-20VR, 28-70 2.8, 10.5FE and a TeleConvertor for the 70-200 too.
My Xmas wish list is stacked high.

by **Glen** on Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:18 pm

Mal, I have the Nikon 70-200VR, but would be equally happy with the Sigma, especially with the price difference. The main advantage of the Nikon is VR. Sirhc55 and I did a shootout between these two lenses, seemed very equal optically.

by **Oz_Beachside** on Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:03 pm

the 70-200VR for me won in terms of ergonomics over the 80-200 nikon (and I suspect the same reasons of the sigma).

VR is very nice at low light, particularly if you are not happy with ISO noise of a pre D3/D300.

by **Raskill** on Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:27 pm

I've had both the Sigma version, which I sold to buy the Nikkor VR version, and couldn't notice a great deal of difference. The VR would be better for low light, giving the advantage of an extra 'stop' or two, but is that worth another $1000. I think not. I only bought the VR cause I thought I needed it.

Mistake on my part.

by **Oneputt** on Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:47 pm

The 70-200VR is a very fine lens, one of Nikon's best zooms. I sold mine sim ply because I had overlapping lenses and I did not want $2000 tied up in a lens I rarely used. I bought a second hand push pull 80-200 f2.8 for around $600. It was one of my better decisions.

by **Raskill** on Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:21 pm

I recall a test being done between the 70-200 VR and the Sigma 70-200 on this very board. If I recall it was by an ex member :wink:

Anywhoo, the test showed the Sigma to be marginally sharper at some settings.

I think you couldn't go wrong with the Sigma. I think I paid about $1000 for mine from B&H or Sigma 4 Less, and sold it for $920 on Ebay.

by **sirhc55** on Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:35 pm

Raskill wrote:I recall a test being done between the 70-200 VR and the Sigma 70-200 on this very board. If I recall it was by an ex member

Anywhoo, the test showed the Sigma to be marginally sharper at some settings.

I think you couldn't go wrong with the Sigma. I think I paid about $1000 for mine from B&H or Sigma 4 Less, and sold it for $920 on Ebay.

You’re right Alan but not an ex-member - it was between myself and Glen. Glen has the VR and I have the Sigma (one lens I will not get rid of)

by **Raskill** on Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:00 pm

Still, not a bad memory... :wink:

by **Mal** on Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:50 pm

Thanks for the help folks. All I have to do is save, save save!!!!

by **ATJ** on Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:38 am

Glen and Chris,

When you did your comparison, did you notice any differences in the speed with which the two lenses focus?

Also, will the Sigma work fine with the Nikon Teleconverters, mainly 1.4x and 1.7x?

by **sirhc55** on Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:34 am

ATJ wrote:Glen and Chris,

When you did your comparison, did you notice any differences in the speed with which the two lenses focus?

Also, will the Sigma work fine with the Nikon Teleconverters, mainly 1.4x and 1.7x?

Hard to remember the speed comparison but I have to say that the Sigma is no sluggard. I have the dedicated Sigma x2 converter which works fine. As for the Nikon converters I have not tried any so can’t help.

by **Glen** on Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:46 am

My memory is that the speed was very close, certainly not enough to make a decision either way. Both obtained focus very swiftly.

I don't know about the TC.

by **ATJ** on Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:59 am

Thanks. That does make my decision harder (or easier depending on which way I look at it

)

by **Glen** on Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:04 am

Try and value VR to you. I think that is the biggest difference. At present the price difference is $925, if VR is worth that much go Nikon if not go Sigma. I chose Nikon as the difference was $500 when I chose and as I am still using lenses from the 1980s I bought, thought I am likely to be still using either lens in twenty years time so got VR.

by **ATJ** on Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:42 am

I would like VR but I don't know if I need it. I don't have any VR lenses so I have not first hand experience with the value.

I do have a Tamron 70-210mm lens from the 80s that still works but is completely manual (non-CPU). It is a pain to use.

As you say, you keep good lenses for a long time so I might just save up for the Nikon.

by **BullcreekBob** on Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:47 pm

G'day

Last week Sigma announced a new version of their 70-200mm lens. See
http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/071203_70_200_28_II_apo_dg_macro.htm

Reading the specs does inform much, it's 10g lighter and 0.1mm less wide and it has 1 extra piece of ELD glass but seems otherwise to be *the same* No pricing has been announced yet but it could herald some discounting on the *old* lens.

Cheers
Bob

by **gstark** on Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:08 pm

Glen wrote:Try and value VR to you.

I think it's magic.

The other day I was out playing with the Tamron 18-250, and the absence of VR was particularly noticeable to my aging, arthritic hands.

In all seriousness, I find the VR to be very useful, and while I don't yet have either of the 70-200 lenses, my expectation is that sometime next year there will be a Nikkor 70-200 VR finding its way into the Stark household.

by **sirhc55** on Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:23 pm

You could always see your local surgeon and have some minute Japanese motors installed into your hands. Run micro wires to the eyes and you will have VR for any lens :roll: